Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by JDS999, Aug 21, 2018.

  1. JDS999

    it just seems useless today all the try hard players from what ive been told have the ability to see through this smoke by turning down there settings. the only logical thing i would do would be able to make it so that no matter what settings u cant see through this smoke making the ir implant worth using. i just got the it implant and was using la to flank and smoke for a few hoursand to me it just seemed like most players killed me instantaneously as i entered the room. Also i will note that i didnt see any suppresive fire when i was about to enter.when im in a room and get smoked i cant see **** but w/e.
    • Up x 1
  2. Demigan

    Smoke should do the following:

    • Allies in smoke lose all spots on them, including spots that happen while in the smoke (a likely culprit for being killed while going through smoke).
    • Smoke will block radar, so standing in smoke prevents Motion Spotters, Recon darts etc to detect you while moving through it.
    • Enemies in smoke will get highlighted through a wireframe or similar, making it easy for allies to shoot at those enemies.
      • This means that IR smoke isn't to make use of smoke, but an attempt to spot the smoke user and his allies.
      • Players who turn off smoke to see enemies will not be able to spot smoke, and might accidentally reveal themselves or not realize why an enemy keeps losing his spot.
    • All smoke gains a faction color.
    • Up x 3
  3. Movoza

    This has been a great frustration for me as well. Players feel they're justified in turning off part of the tactics as they don't use it themselves, or even use it themselves to get an edge on players who don't tamper with their setting to see through smoke. It's like turning off smoke in PUBG or something, it shouldn't.

    I would want smoke to either be fixed so it can't be turned off, or changed so it has other properties wjy you don't want it turned off. For example, the LA's smoke grenade could also make all enemies spotted and glow through the cloud like their shield is charging from the medic shield charger, as well as removing all spots on the friendlies that enter. You can prevent shield recharge (too powerful imho). You can also introduce things that are also reliant on the smoke mechanic which is important to have. A scanner that shows a smoke outline of enemies where they where at the moment of using the scanner for some seconds, visible through walls for example.
  4. adamts01

    Everything sounds great but this, which would essentially make smoke an "I win" move, especially with the sensor deprivation additions you mentioned, which I dig. I like the idea of squads who chose that tactic also equipping thermal sights.

    I'd actually really like to see a helmet slot in the future, with a few choices to be toggled being NV, Thermal, or an always present Protection, maybe 5%. That would let us have real nights and more powerful smoke. EMPs could be a nifty option to temporarily counter goggles. Infravision could have farther range to keep it useful. Bolt actions and the Daimyo would need a higher headshot multiplier to counter helmets to keep it from being the default choice.
    • Up x 1
  5. Demigan

    Without the highlighting, turning off smoke would be even more OP.
    Without the highlightning, smoke would be useless for most intents and purposes. Throw it to an enemy and he benefits from the anti-radar stuff but can't see well to shoot you (unless he turned it off). Throw it for yourself and you can't see unless you've got NV, but at that point we have the exact same thing we have now and that's useless most of the time. It's on the LA, the movement class! Having to scope in and slow yourself down to make use of smoke is the opposite of what an LA should be doing!

    Having a helmet-scope would be nice though. It would make the NV implant kinda useless though.
  6. adamts01

    100% true. I was thinking in my mind that smoke would be universally applied, as OP suggested. I'm a little rusty regarding forum warring. Thanks 3rd world internet.

    edit: I'm of the opinion that smoke should be removed unless some sort of visual impairment is forced regardless of settings. If computers literally can't handle it, then just black out the area effected. I can say first hand that a ridiculous amount of git gud infantry players disable particles, and it's a rdiculous advantage.
  7. Armcross

    As of recently smoke is working fine. Very useful pushing my zerg against enemy zergs. Works well against vehicle even if I can't kill them.
  8. Liewec123

    I like Demigan's idea to allow allies to see enemies through friendly smoke, because currently smoke is just a d##kish move,
    It sucks for both teams, I think we should all band together and kill smoke users on sight, no matter which team.

    If they did do something like Demigan's idea then smoke would finally be something you'd like to see your allies using,
    Instead of hating their guts for it!
  9. FateJH

    The best purpose of smoke is not for engagement but for troop advancement and, occasionally, for distraction. If you see someone has laid down smoke between you and your enemy, don't run through it - in one side and out the other - directly towards the enemy; instead, use the smoke as the blockage it is between you and your opponent and get around it to a position they are not expecting. It's like with Infiltrators. Don't act like smoke makes you invisible to the enemy. Use it as a stepping stone. Learn to judge situation and architecture to avoid poorly placed smoke and to avoid using smoke poorly.
    Yes, Infravision is what you want.
  10. TobiMK

    Smoke being turned off is simply a side effect of maximizing your settings for highest performance. I don't have any issues with smoke as a tactical tool, but smoke (and other particles) make my framerate even lower and that's something I can't play with.

    If smoke were to be fixed to actually block my view on low settings, I'd still not be at a great disadvantage. I can simply spot through the smoke and shoot at enemy's markers. Low settings aren't needed to nullify the effects of smoke, it is rather useless overall.
  11. TobiMK

    It's really not a big advantage, we simply do it to maximize FPS. As I said elsewhere in this thread, if I had smoke enabled I would simply spot through it and shoot at enemy's markers and I could still kill them just fine.
  12. Demigan

    So what you are saying is absolutely of no value because all you do is (poorly) tell me exactly what smoke does now, but you give zero perspective on what these changes could do? Oh wait you do give a teeny tiny little bit of perspective, in that you basically proclaim "any change to the game is bad".

    You've been doing this for ages now. All you do is state how the game is currently, and then assume that that's all it takes to make an argument sufficient to keep it the same. You provide nothing as to why my idea would be bad at all! You don't even provide a reason why current smoke grenades are in a good position for their cost and the slot they use in the game!

    The best current purpose of smoke is for troop advancement, but it barely works sufficiently to be worth even 10 nanites per grenade. Walking into a room using smoke also does not guarantee any advantage, as enemies can still spot you and shoot you while you advance through the smoke. This essentially gives the enemy a bigger advantage than it does the people entering, especially for the average player that often can't find a good spot to get to cover until they are out of the smoke.

    Using smoke to "get around it to a position they are not expecting" is just plain bullcrap. Smoke does not magically allow you to flank, and in fact tips people off to watch for flanks if they haven't just spotted you through the smoke and know where you are anyway. Aside from vehicle smoke, all smoke generators don't even have enough range to have an effective screen that allows you to get around. And in those cases where you could use smoke to get around to an enemies flank, not using the smoke will give more success as enemies aren't going to be tipped off about your whereabouts.

    If you had any reading comprehension left, no I don't. Infravision is a permanent, non-deactivateable implant that is active until you switch it out with something else at a terminal. What I want is an (preferably LA-oriented) ability that allows LA's to equip helmet visors that you can activate and deactivate at will. This way you can throw smoke and use NV/HV scopes without reducing your movement speed through ADS or having to permanently equip the infravision implant.
  13. adamts01

    Something is clearly wrong with you. Spamming smoke grenades without particles is like hunting at the zoo. Clearly seeing and shooting a guy in the face is infinitely quicker, more accurate, and more reliable than spamming spot through smoke. If you don't think seeing your target while they can't see you in a fps is a big advantage, then I seriously wonder how you manage to get dressed in the morning.
    • Up x 1
  14. FateJH

    Demigan, I've already told you. I don't comment on new ideas unless I have misgivings about their pitch, or if the conversation seques from some other aspect in which I was engaged. I also make posts I intend to be instructive (doing the math usually, or this case here) and I do blunt posts ("That's not being instructive. That's being a jerk.").
    That's because I did not say it was bad as per my previous comment. You have also been doing this for ages with my posts. Stop trying to build antagonism from positions where none exists. I admit to having a penchant for modernity but I do not use it for argumentative leverage. I use it as a platform to springboard questions as I remain concerned whether people have thought things through as well as they intend to project.

    I don't intend to argue about matters in this game the way you do.

    The rest of your post will be ignored as I have already said what I intended to say in the first post; and, there is no more meaning to it than the words used to express it; and, much of the rest of yours is playing silly loose with my words in what I can only assume is an effort to provoke some form of vitriol. I commented on the use of smoke and then I clarified the implant by name you were talking about for other people. Once again, I implore you to read only the words I write and not in between them. Those are blank space.
  15. Demigan

    You haven't told us any of your misgivings about the pitch of the idea, you just stated how things are now. Also this conversation does not seque from other aspects which you were engaged, as smoke is in fact often turned off which makes for plenty of reasons to give smoke specific tools to ensure people do not do so or are punished.

    It's not funny as you rarely use the first one and almost all the latter one. All not being instructive and all being a jerk. That's not an insult, that's the honest truth you can find right here in this thread and others as well.

    See? You post something about how smoke is used currently without any regard for my idea, which makes it look like you are against it. Then you make a terrible comment about how I want infravision when I quite literally just said I wanted something else so I didn't need to bring it. So your purpose of the post isn't to inform, you misrepresent things and post the current situation for no reason at all when people specifically present an alternative to the current situations because they dont' agree with it. And if they don't agree with it, they know what the current situation is and don't need explaining. Is that so hard to understand?

    There exists antagonism allright. Why else would you just restate the current situation that people are well aware off and make no single remark about the actual idea put forwards?

    Since you do not use reason and in fact ignore other people's reasons and I quote "I don't comment on new idea's unless I have misgivings about their pitch" but still reply to them, you do not have any penchant for modernity. Also the whole point of modernity, stemming from the litteral age of reason, is what do you think...? Read that wiki.

    You haven't springboarded questions about my smoke idea so far, and you haven't even directed a single comment towards the idea I put forth.

    You don't intend to argue at all.

    Also "the way you do", care to explain? You mean with reasons, arguments, logics and numbers? And the addition of rephrasing what you said to catch you on the problems of what your words would cause?

    Hmm, first post had 1 alinea which said basically nothing about what I said and the last line was exactly the opposite of what I asked for presented as if I asked for it. So you wanted to say nothing and lie to everyone? Kind of figures.

    I'm not playing silly loose with your words, I'm rephrasing the exact same words and pointing out the flaws. If for all your grandeur and expensive wording you actually made a proper argument I wouldn't be able to "play silly loose" with your words.

    And again, no I did not talk about infravision, if you still don't get that, get the hell out of here and take your terrible writing with you.
  16. TobiMK

    If it's that much of an advantage, why don't you do it too?

    I didn't do it for a long time myself either, that's how I know that you can still kill people through smoke, even with particles enabled. But I also have far better awareness and aim than the average player, so my perspective may be skewed.

    Nevertheless, the main reason to do it is the increased framerate, not the wanna-be wallhack.
  17. Demigan

    I'm sorry but you don't deserve to play with that attitude.

    Turning a portion of the game off "for performance reasons" is the worst excuse. Even if you do need it for performance, you must be playing on a potato.

    It would be akin to turning off infiltrator cloak "for performance reasons", assuming it would be possible. Even if you do it for performance, it's nothing more than a cheat for your own advantage as you quite literally turn off a part of the game mechanics and get a direct advantage even if you didn't get performance increases. The fact that smoke is currently not very useful even if you don't turn it off is a seperate problem which the OP tries to adress. He wants idea's to make smoke useful and to make sure people don't turn smoke off again or will still be at a disadvantage when smoke is thrown, rather than an advantage.
  18. TobiMK

    Evidently I do, because it is not a bannable offense. Devs are well aware of this and it is not against the TOS.

    It's absolutely not. I need playable performance, otherwise how am I supposed to play the game. And since I'm not doing anything against the rules, there is nothing speaking against me doing this.
  19. Demigan

    Funny, so several months of attempts to stop people from being able to turn off smoke in combination with changes to the game engine expressly to even out the difference between high graphics smoke and low graphics smoke are all just random stuff that have nothing to do with it?

    Also I'm sure that if you read the TOS that deliberate changes to the cliënt (IE turning off smoke) are forbidden. Just like the "larger headshot area" cheat which was achieved practically the exact same way was a cheat.

    If you need playable performance GET A PC THAT CAN HANDLE SMOKE. Dont try and pass off your cheat as OK because "mah framerate".
  20. TobiMK

    If the devs didn't want this to be done, they would ban people for it/completely disable it/publicly state it isn't allowed.

    Comparing hitbox edits to turning off smoke in the ini file... I know people on here are often insane (and I try to avoid this place usually), but that's probably the dumbest thing I've read here so far.